There is one more thought to be added to the last two blogs about having balance in the public media’s coverage of the presidential race, i.e., there must be accountability for irresponsible journalism. What is considered irresponsible is more likely to exist in the reader’s eye than anywhere else. Finding any objective criteria to use is undoubtedly out of reach. But the lack of media scrutiny of Hillary’s career achievements, or lack thereof to be more accurate, is startling. That she is being given a pass by the liberal media is too obvious to merit serious discussion. Only her “coronation” remains according to prevailing sentiment among liberals. This is totally unacceptable, particularly where the stakes are so high as in a presidential race.

While “Freedom of the Press” must be given full rein in a democratic society, media irresponsibility is not an isolated occurrence and should not be tolerated. The media is not perfect by any means. One blatant example of media irresponsibility, albeit not in a political context, comes to mind, the publication on December 5, 1941, by the Chicago Tribune, “practically in full,” of “the most highly secret paper in the possession of the U.S. Government.” That paper contained the U.S. plans for fighting a global war if one should eventuate. Secretary of War Frank Knox advised reporters that day that an investigation of the Tribune would be likely. This episode is mentioned on page 300 of my new book “Prelude to Disaster: How Imperial Japan’s Diplomatic Treachery Led to America’s Greatest Military Disaster – Pearl Harbor,” available on Amazon.com in Kindle and in print. I am not aware that any such investigation ever took place but no doubt it was considered by many and had it taken place may have been well justified. Why the Tribune would stoop to such a tactic as revelation of the most closely guarded Government secret at a time when the possibility of war was close at hand was definitely not in the public interest. Freedom of the press? This was an abuse of that freedom. Such an abuse is beyond my understanding and clearly qualifies as irresponsible journalism.

What is going on in today’s presidential race may not be as clear cut as the foregoing example but still qualifies as irresponsible journalism. I’m talking about the media favoritism that is being accorded Hillary Clinton. Here is a power hungry woman who brings nothing to the table. She does not even qualify as a light- weight, she is a no-weight. But many, far too many, in the media continue to give her a pass so far as her questioning her qualifications is concerned. Electing a president is serious business. It’s not a popularity contest. It runs deeper, much deeper, than partisan politics. We’re talking about qualifications for running the country. Where has it been shown that Hillary has the experience to make the difficult, the very difficult decisions that a president must make? Why doesn’t the media jump on her total and complete lack of a track record so far as success in life is concerned and give that as much coverage as it gives to Trump? Trump is scrutinized continually. The imbalance is totally unjustified.

No partisanship is intended by singling out Hillary’s lack of performance credentials. On the Republican side, Carly Fiorina has the same basic flaw as Hillary, i.e., no track record of proven success, nothing to show she has been weighed in the balance and found able to perform. True she was once CEO of Hewlett-Packard but she was also fired. Where is her track record of performance? There is none to speak of.

The country simply cannot afford to repeat the same mistake it made with Obama, to wit, electing someone as president with no proven experience in making difficult decisions, with no proven qualifications as a leader. It may well be the right time for a woman president, but it has to be the right woman. That woman is not Hillary. Hillary is dangerous for this country, not to mention the free world. She is incompetent, inexperienced, and totally lacking in the leadership skills, judgement, and temperament necessary for the chief executive. She is a world-class liar to boot, and the pending FBI investigation portends possible dishonesty. In order to strike a fair balance in media coverage of the presidential candidates, those premises all deserve to be and must be fully vetted by the media.